About your Search

20130904
20130912
STATION
CSPAN 4
KCSM (PBS) 2
KQED (PBS) 2
CNNW 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 11
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: when former national security agency contractor edward snowden leaked classified documents to the press in may, he revealed extensive u.s. spying operations carried out on enemies and allies alike. last week, the "washington post" published a detailed account of the so called "black budget," money the u.s. government spends on spy operations. it was also revealed that u.s. intelligence agencies have been reading the personal emails of the presidents of mexico and brazil. at his press conference with the swedish prime minister in stockholm today, president obama denied that the u.s. was eavesdropping. >> i can give assurances to the publics in europe and around the world that we're not going around snooping at people's e-mails or listening to their phone calls. what we try to do is to target very specifically areas of concern. and there may be situations in which we're gathering information just because we can, but that doesn't help with us our national security, but does raise questions in terms of whether we're tipping
security agency access to those countries citizens data, and i think that is a really important distinction that has gotten lost in the wake of the snowden revelations. say what you will about how well our framework works, we have a framework. >> that is a very good point, a very astute point. as we were talking, back in 2011, the obama administration won an appeal to reverse restrictions on the nsa back in 2008, and those restrictions dealt with the use of intercepted phone calls and e- mails. and you talk about this more? what does this say about the nsa? >> i suspect there will be a re- examination of that opinion to see whether or not that ruling was justified in terms of the needs. i think as was pointed out, and as others have pointed out, there are legitimate need for surveillance that protect the country against threats. the question is whether or not that effort to protect the country oversteps the protection of privacy that all of us are also entitled to, so there is a balance that needs to be struck. as the general counsel pointed out a couple of weeks ago at the german marshall
by former national security agency contractor edward notice snowden the nsa has invested billions of dollars in super-fast computers to break transactions including banking transactions, consumer e-commerce, corporate trade secrets and medical records and other confidential information. the documents also show the agency secretly persuaded or legally forced technology companies to provide it with the keys to their encryption program so that it could deroad -- decode billions of enter thet chats and phone calls in the u.s. and across the world. in a 2010 briefing memo for nsa's counterpart, the agency boasted of an aggressive, multi-pronged effort to break widely used internet encryption technologies saying that vast amount of online data previously ignored is now being exploited. the british agency reported it had developed what it called access opportunities to google's encrypted traffic. there are over 400 million users of g mail. other companies targeted by code breakers include yahoo! facebook and microsoft's hot mail. the documents collected by snowden have been shared with "
online encryption tools that help users communicate securely. but the national security agency has seemed to crack the code and have been doing so at least since the year 2000. this according to the latest secret documents leaked by edward snowden. we now know that both the n.s.a. and its british counterpart the gchq has made millions of attempts to gain access. >> a huge breakthrough in 2010 a way was made it monitor large amounts of data flowing through the fiberoptic cables. the spy agencies found ways to again access through virtue private networks which are frequently used by businesses and privacy conscious users to conceal i.p. addresses. that means the digital scrambling used to protect trade secrets, medical records and more have been unscrambled by the n.s.a. and the spying organization has been covertly working to get access to data. both the n.s.a. spends more than $250 million a year on its enabling project which actively engages the u.s. and foreign i.t. industries to covertly influence and leverage their commercial product designed to make them exploitable. it is unclear wh
it called the national security agency's secret war on the technology that ensures privacy on line. the reports the times, the agency has cracked much of the encryption that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive gay take and automatically secures the e-mails, internet chats and phone calls of americans, all part of a super secret program code named bull run according to documents provided by edward j. snowden. no one has said snowden's information is wrong. and and a government official tells me there is much more. the generals in egypt apparently think several islamist tv stations were more than unreliab unreliable, so they shut them down. and also al gezira english, accused of spreading rumors and claims harmful to national security and threaten the country's unity. which otherwise is what, just fine? al jazeera denied the claims. and said it was fair and balanced. finally, melissa milano ends up being a tape about syria. just the basics, though. and it only takes two minutes. we'll leave it at that. and that's it for reliable sources. if you miss a progr
-known national security agencies that deal with threats to the global, when you are dealing with local threats and lone wolves, it is police boots on the ground, local folks , community leaders with got to be part of the process of identifying threats. >> right here. right here, second row. secretary, i wanted you to address the boston marathon. he said communication is key but in that situation one problem was communication between certain departments and government and certain governments. ts are not inac and i do not want to speculate. you have to look at this and several stages. be,set of questions will why? somehow they lost track of tsarnaev, the old when once he went over -- the older one with the went over to chechnya and was over there for a few months. why there was not an alert on that. why the russian warning was not integrated or taken seriously. the second set of issues is whether with in the u.s. government where people did have warning, how come they did not pursue it further communicate? i do not know the answer but that's a second case of issues. amonghe bombings occurred --
that while the national security agency has a big dog, it's an important participant. i used to work there. very supportive of it. but everyone in the country needs to be reassured that when we're talking about cybersecurity, it's d.h.s. that's setting the policy and dealing with the data, not the national security agency. so what i would say is maybe d.h.s. doesn't need so much a bigger dog as a leash. and authorizing legislation can provide that kind of reassurance to the american people. >> thank you for those comments. how do we better honor the loss of all those lives 2 years ago this morning? do -- 12 years ago this morning? do we join some of our colleagues on the steps of the capitol for an observance or do we better honor their lives and their loss by continuing to do our work here today? we believe the best way is for us to continue doing that. we'll continue going through the 11:00 hour and give us a chance to really drill down on some of these important issues. with that having been said, let me yield to dr. coburn. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. couple points on what i hear
have your high-tech kind of well-known national security agencies that deal with threats that are global, when you are dealing with local threats and lone wolves, it is police boots on the ground, local folks, community leaders who have got to be part of the process of identifying threats. >> right here. right here, second row. >> mr. secretary, i wanted you to address the boston marathon. you said communication is key but in that situation one problem was communication between certain departments and government and certain governments. >> the full facts are not in and i do not want to speculate. you have to look at this in several stages. one set of questions will be, why? somehow they lost track of tsarnaev, the older one, when he went over to chechnya and was over there for a few months. why there was not an alert on that? why was the russian warning did not integrated or taken seriously? the second set of issues is whether within the u.s. government where people did have warning, how come they did not pursue further communication? i do not know the answer but that's a
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)